Political scientists expect this to continue for some while, with power possibly thrown from one party to another in election after election in a very destabilizing and undermining manner.

Therefore I say: ANY candidate who runs a splinter or third-party campaign from the left in this environment IS, by definition and de facto, willing to accept continued Republican hold on power as an alternative to winning.

That wasn't a new reality in 2016, and it won't be in 2020. Third party input could be a plus back in the New Deal and early Reagan eras. It's a recipe for national destruction in this one.

of UK and the former empire. I like that. I like that the nasty reactions to her race are so minor that it's happening. I see it as an advance.

You seem really hipped on this whole subject of England's royal family, in a very negative way. Maybe examine why you object so much to them becoming less what you imagine you dislike so much? They're not half as important to me. I didn't even know until today that she existed or that her mother is black, PoC, whatever people prefer to call it. I just think it's nice and I was glad to hear about it.

If it's any perverse comfort to you, she's really as much white as black. It's not as if both her parents were Somali or some such. You can still despise the royal family for being appallingly wealthy (I'm with you to the point of very strongly disapproving that, but not to the point of becoming overcome with hostility) and failing to break that barrier.

Liberals and most Democrats ARE the nation's anti-fascists. All those who use "antifa" to mean we are fascists are supporters of fascism, whether they know it or not, and of course some know perfectly well. If you are using that term the way those who invented it mean it to be, you may have accidentally turned left on your way to a different forum.

It's a big part of what makes them conservative. In this case, it wouldn't matter how many people they see working happily for the pleasure of working and/or for its other rewards, they "feel" most people would not work if they didn't have to.

Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that strong conservatives are simply not fit for leadership in a democracy.

Soviet Union collapsed. I saw it with the tremendous ramping up of hostility conservatives turned on Democrats when Bill Clinton was running, to unprecedented levels. When the existential threat strong conservatives always know exists disappeared from without, they focused within.

Putin, ISIS, North Korea, etc., are nothing to be wished for, but hopefully these very real existential threats will help shift the focus of their inevitable hostility and aggression outward again.

Right now people like Bannon are trying very hard to develop an international movement against liberalism and secularism in which our conservatives are joined with Russia's, and even potentially Islam's conservatives, against liberalism and secularism. At least that's the grand idea, but they've only gotten this far by hiding what they're really up to.

But as we know, they do work very well for conservatives, who, generally speaking, have a dark view of humanity and are always eager to identify, villify, and attack.

For all of us, a nice juicy lie will always be far more interesting than policy explanations. And a lie may circle the planet in the time it takes the truth to pull its pants on.

But ultimately lies repel liberals, who, if not perfect truthseekers, do respect truth and become angry at being lied to a lot more than conservatives. That's why right-wing propaganda machines are so much more powerful than the ones operated by smarmy left-wingers.

they do have strong feelings-based predilections, leaving them very vulnerable to manipulation by others who connect those feelings to their own goals and direct them against...us.

Right now, it seems that the attack-enemies political mode most conservatives have been in for so long has been forming, far more strongly than I guessed, into an anti-liberal and anti-secular movement (bizarrely) revealed by this election--and by the people come out of the shadows to gloat in Washington--that is truly frightening.

Scarily, both anti-liberalism and anti-secularism DO both come from the gut of most conservatives, and both support a genuine powerful ideology bent on destroying our liberalism-based republic. The replacement would be determined by whichever faction would win out, of course, a libertarian or an economic or religious fascistic pretense of a republic, turning us into the world's most technologically advanced, poor, underdeveloped nation.

From what I've read, for those specifically supporting this, this is what's behind the admiration for Russia -- now seen as an ally in a global battle against liberalism and secularism.

We have a huge job to do, but it may be that our greatest ally will be the extremist leaders themselves, for all their current victories. They're powerful in money and passion but fundamentally incompetent to run a large nation. And they are extremists, and the true scope of the revolution they plan is not something they can admit to even their own followers.

At least all this is the nightmare that keeps returning to mind whenever I wake up in the middle of the night. We came so close to hopefully being able to tamp discontent down with further growth of prosperity and personal security.

mess of a nation; yes, with an oversized military, but no match for us. It has almost no manufacturing aside from munitions, and its GDP is maybe half the size of California's.

Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union from this underdeveloped, mislead wreck, but before he can invade and take over European nations he has to take out the U.S. and with it NATO. It's war on the U.S. just as the 9/11 attacks were war.

The VA's operating costs are about 3% of its budget, the rest going to patient care. And in the process, many billions of dollars in profits from exploiting veterans problems are being denied the hyenas.

Charles Koch: "The only legitimate role of government is protection of person and property."